Wednesday, July 27, 2011

Doug Siskiyou chipmunks are go! Stan Isaacs finally gets around to visiting Citi Field for the first time…

I was back in New York recently for my first look at the Mets’ new ball park, the second-year Citi Field. My first reaction was that-like all the new ball parks-it seemed as if as many people were at the food stands eating as were in the stands watching the game.

...The Mets hit three balls off the outfield fences against the Phillies for doubles; they would have been home runs in just about every ball park in the big leagues. It emphasized what a disaster the distant fences are for the excitement quotient at this ball park. Citi Field lacks the live feeling of such as Fenway Park and the Phillies’ field where the short fences provide a sense that the trailing team can always mount a comeback with a home run.

The Mets lost this game, 8-5, falling short despite scoring four runs in the last two innings. Their chance for a winning rally would have been heightened in the stands if there were realistic hopes for a home run by the batters in the late innings.

...With all this homage to the Brooklyn Dodgers (and Mets successes) I looked in vain for something that would attest that there was also a team known as the New York Giants in the city. Not a one, and maybe that is why Mets owner Fred Wilpon is suffering the curse of Bernie Madoff. The only trace of the Giants of New York is the “NY” type font that the Mets adopted when they were formed in 1962.

At a Mets souvenir shop I asked if there was anything for sale that recognized the New York Giants. “None,” the clerk said-and added, “We have had a few people ask for them.”

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

He's right about the lack of New York Giants homage at the place. Perhaps Wilpon is, in his perverse way, honoring Robert Moses -- who wanted the Dodgers, not the Giants, to play in Flushing Meadows. (And had it not been for Moses' intransigence, Wilpon wouldn't have had a New York National League franchise to buy, unless the alternate universe O'Malleys decided to sell.)

I was back in New York recently for my first look at the Mets’ new ball park, the second-year Citi Field. My first reaction was that-like all the new ball parks-it seemed as if as many people were at the food stands eating as were in the stands watching the game.

Which means there were probably 10,000 more fans in the seats and concessions than at a typical game in the 70's in those other ballparks.

It emphasized what a disaster the distant fences are for the excitement quotient at this ball park. Citi Field lacks the live feeling of such as Fenway Park and the Phillies’ field where the short fences provide a sense that the trailing team can always mount a comeback with a home run.

The Mets lost this game, 8-5, falling short despite scoring four runs in the last two innings.

I know he's crying that there aren't more home runs, but, seriously, the Mets DID score 4 runs in the last two innings, didn't they? Maybe the Mets just suck.

The writers want home runs to make their stories easy. A long fly ball that's caught or goes for a non-RBI double isn't a story.

It's been shown that fence distance doesn't really correlate to overall scoring all that highly. Far fences mostly turn HRs into doubles, which aren't all that different for run scoring; any additional hit in the inning scores the runner from 2B and makes them the same. And the converse happens for short fences; new Yankee stadium has the high HR factor but the overall scoring isn't really far out of line since it's just doubles that are turning into the home runs.

Of course, he also doesn't mention (or apparently think about) how much further behind the Mets might have been had the fences been closer when the Phillies were building their lead in the early innings.

Anyway, I am one of those who think Citifield is about right for overall offense, but skewed in suppressing right-handed power. I'd be fine with moving in the left field fences but compensating elsewhere to keep the overall offense the same. Adjusting the park to balance how people build offense/scoring is something they could look at without making it any less of a pitcher's park.

[8] I will say, I was at that game and it was pretty painful to watch. But I don't think the fences had anything to do with it.

Bay's error (top of the 8th: fly ball clanks off the outside of his glove--3 runs score with 2 outs in the inning making a 5-1 game into an 8-1 game) plus his going 0-4 (1st and 3rd with 2 out in the 1st inning, then 1st and 2nd with 2 out in the 3rd, fly out in the 6th with none on and 1 out, mere walk to load the bases with none out in the 8th, foul out with man on 2nd and 1 out in the 9th) did not help.

Pitching duels are more fun to watch on tv, where you can see with some precision where the damned pitch is in relation to the plate, to the strike zone. Slugfests are more fun at the park, where when the ball is in play it's easier to see ALL the action (which the narrower angle of the camera lens misses), and the crowd is more into the game than in most low scoring game.